I have run into a problem with a search string. I am trying to find a certain discourse sequence for a sentence: verb, followed by noun or pronoun in the accusative, followed by noun or pronoun in the nominative. My search string: [VERB] <FOLLOWED BY> (([NOUN accusative] <OR> [PRONOUN accusative])<FOLLOWED BY> ([NOUN nominative] <OR> [PRONOUN nominative] )).

The results are not what I expected. One or more of the above elements are not present, but sentences are highlighted. I am suspicious that all constructs are not evidenced. Could someone help me correct my command string?

As I am just learning about Accordance, can you tell me why it must be done with the construct window and won't work as presented? I'd like to know. I know the construct window will allow you combinations with AGREE/INTER and so forth that are not possible via a text command string, but this example seems pretty straightforward as presented. If there are limitations in the search arguments, I'd like to become aware of the specific areas they are not consistent with expectations.

True, you have to use the Construct window to define agreements or an Inter, but it is often better with multiple <FOLLOWED BY> and nested commands. Even though the syntax of this search looks OK to me, Accordance is trying to parse this syntax and look for all possible combinations. More than one <FOLLOWED BY> makes it very messy. See how elegant this is in a construct which took only seconds to create:

I requested that the text be limited to Philippians (using the example of your construct window). I just upgraded to version 8.2.3.

kagw is given as a result for Phil 2:19 and 2:28.

Problem solved! kagw is pulling out the nominative pronoun egw from the construct. I was thrown off because it showed up as an adverb in the instant details box and was showing in a separate unrelated clause than what I was looking for (I need to somehow restrict the "within" search parameter?)--and I was too focused.